Lowman v. City of Asheville

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Lowman v. City of Asheville

49 S.E.2d 408, 229 N.C. 247, 1948 N.C. LEXIS 457

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 22, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 S.E.2d 408 (Lowman v. City of Asheville) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lowman v. City of Asheville, 49 S.E.2d 408, 229 N.C. 247, 1948 N.C. LEXIS 457 (N.C. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Denny, J.

Ordinarily whether or not the trial judge grants a motion to make a pleading more definite, as provided in G. S., 1-153, is within his discretion. And where there is nothing on the record, as in the instant case, to indicate the motion was denied as a matter of law, it will be presumed the judge denied it in his discretion. Brown v. Hall, 226 N. C., 732, 40 S.E. (2d), 412; Cody v. Hovey, 219 N. C., 369, 14 S. E. (2d), 30; Wolf v. Goldstein, 192 N. C., 818, 135 S. E., 39; Hensley v. Furniture Co., 164 N. C., 148, 80 S. E., 154. It would seem the motion had some merit, but such orders entered in the discretion of the trial judge are not reviewable upon appeal. Cody v. Iiovey, supra: Brown v. Hall, supra. Even so, we know of no reason wiry the defendant, if it so desires, may not apply for a bill of particulars, as provided in G. S., 1-150. Building Co. v. Jones, 227 N. C., 282, 41 S. E. (2d), 747; Lucas v. Railway Co., 121 N. C., 506, 28 S. E., 265.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Denny, J.

Ordinarily whether or not the trial judge grants a motion to make a pleading more definite, as provided in G. S., 1-153, is within his discretion. And where there is nothing on the record, as in the instant case, to indicate the motion was denied as a matter of law, it will be presumed the judge denied it in his discretion. Brown v. Hall, 226 N. C., 732, 40 S.E. (2d), 412; Cody v. Hovey, 219 N. C., 369, 14 S. E. (2d), 30; Wolf v. Goldstein, 192 N. C., 818, 135 S. E., 39; Hensley v. Furniture Co., 164 N. C., 148, 80 S. E., 154. It would seem the motion had some merit, but such orders entered in the discretion of the trial judge are not reviewable upon appeal. Cody v. Iiovey, supra: Brown v. Hall, supra. Even so, we know of no reason wiry the defendant, if it so desires, may not apply for a bill of particulars, as provided in G. S., 1-150. Building Co. v. Jones, 227 N. C., 282, 41 S. E. (2d), 747; Lucas v. Railway Co., 121 N. C., 506, 28 S. E., 265.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 S.E.2d 408, 229 N.C. 247, 1948 N.C. LEXIS 457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowman-v-city-of-asheville-nc-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack